You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under the
Public Information Act, chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned
ID# 142388.

The Weatherford Independent School District ("WISD") received a request for a file on a
former teacher. Specifically, the requestor sought information regarding the nature of certain
allegations of assault and sexual harassment against the former teacher, how those allegations
came to be known by WISD, and how WISD handled the matter. You claim that the
requested information is excepted from disclosure under sections 552.026, 552.101, 552.114,
and 552.131 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and
reviewed the submitted information.

You claim that portions of the information are excepted under section 552.101 in conjunction
with the common law right to privacy. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts
from disclosure information that is "considered to be confidential by law, either
constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. The common law
right of privacy is incorporated into the Public Information Act by section 552.101. For
information to be protected by common law privacy it must meet the criteria set out in
Industrial Foundation v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). The Industrial Foundation court held that information is excepted from disclosure if "(1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing
facts the [release] of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the
information is not of legitimate concern to the public." 540 S.W.2d at 685.

In Morales v. Ellen, 840 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1992, writ denied), the court
addressed the applicability of the right of common law privacy to files of an investigation of
allegations of sexual harassment. The investigation files in Ellen contained individual
witness statements, an affidavit by the individual accused of the misconduct responding to
the allegations, and conclusions of the board of inquiry that conducted the investigation.
Ellen, 840 S.W.2d at 525. The court ordered the release of the affidavit of the person under
investigation and the conclusions of the board of inquiry, stating that the public's interest was
sufficiently served by the disclosure of such documents. Id. In concluding, the Ellen court held that "the public did not possess a legitimate interest in the identities of the individual witnesses, nor the details of their personal statements beyond what is contained in the
documents that have been ordered released." Id.

According to Ellen, the public has a legitimate interest in documents that adequately
summarize sexual harassment allegations and the results of investigations into those
allegations, but not in the identities or detailed statements of the victim and witnesses. See
id; see also Open Records Decision Nos. 473 (1987), 470 (1987) (public has legitimate
interest in job performance of public employees). We find that two documents in the
investigation file, when taken together, constitute an adequate summary of the sexual
harassment allegation and investigation. You must release these documents with the
identifying information of the victim and witness redacted. The remainder of the submitted
information must be withheld pursuant to Ellen and section 552.101 of the Government
Code. We have marked the information that must be withheld. Based on this finding, we
need not reach the remainder of your claims under sections 552.026, 552.114, and 552.131.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the
full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days.
Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the
governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general
have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id.
§ 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public
records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records
will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the
governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body
fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor
should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free,
at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney.
Id. § 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ).

Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for
costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be
sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or
complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the General
Services Commission at 512/475-2497.

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.